Abstract
Inter‐plant competition must be carefully managed to realize the yield potential of increased plant density of maize ( Zea mays L.). Twin row planting arrangement, P fertility, and hybrid selection may be important components of managing increased plant density. Our hypotheses were (i) that twin row planting arrangement would be superior to traditional 0.76‐m rows at ultra‐high densities and (ii) that supplemental P fertility would alleviate inter‐plant competition. In 2010 and 2011, twin row planting arrangement was compared to single 0.76‐m rows across densities ranging from 61,775 to 160,615 plants ha −1 and P fertility treatments ranging from 0 to 168 kg P 2 O 5 ha −1 . Twin rows did not increase yield relative to single rows, and twin rows often yielded significantly less at plant densities greater than 111,195 plants ha −1 . Mean responses to supplemental fertility were 1.0 and 0.3 Mg ha −1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively. There was no interaction between plant density and P fertility suggesting that extra resource availability does not necessarily overcome inter‐plant competition. In 2011, two hybrids of contrasting ear type were included to explore the role of hybrid selection in plant density response. Maximum yields of each hybrid were achieved at contrasting densities, and genetic differences in plant density tolerance appeared to be related to (i) kernel number response on a per‐area basis and (ii) stability of individual kernel weight. These results highlight the importance of independently optimizing row spacing and soil fertility while understanding the plant density response characteristics of maize hybrids.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Twin rows did not increase yield relative to single rows.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Twin rows did not increase yield relative to single rows”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Twin rows often yielded significantly less above 111,195 plants per hectare.
- Treatment
- twin rowse0
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Qualifier
- at plant densities greater than 111,195 plants ha −1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“twin rows often yielded significantly less at plant densities greater than 111,195 plants ha −1”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental phosphorus fertility raised mean yield by 1.0 Mg/ha in 2010.
- Treatment
- supplemental fertilitye0
- Outcome
- Mean responses to supplemental fertilitye0
- Value
- 1.0e0
- Qualifier
- in 2010e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean responses to supplemental fertility were 1.0 and 0.3 Mg ha −1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental phosphorus fertility raised mean yield by 0.3 Mg/ha in 2011.
- Treatment
- supplemental fertilitye0
- Outcome
- Mean responses to supplemental fertilitye0
- Value
- 0.3 Mg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 2011e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean responses to supplemental fertility were 1.0 and 0.3 Mg ha −1 in 2010 and 2011, respectively.”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant density and phosphorus fertility showed no interaction.
- Outcome
- interaction between plant density and P fertilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no interaction between plant density and P fertility”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The two maize hybrids reached maximum yields at contrasting densities.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maximum yields of each hybrid were achieved at contrasting densities”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid density tolerance appeared related to kernel number response per area.
Not reportedMaterialDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“genetic differences in plant density tolerance appeared to be related to (i) kernel number response on a per‐area basis”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Hybrid density tolerance appeared related to individual kernel weight stability.
Not reportedMaterialDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“genetic differences in plant density tolerance appeared to be related to (i) kernel number response on a per‐area basis and (ii) stability of individual kernel weight.”
t0“Maize”